HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Hunaid A. Vohra Toufan Bahrami Shakil Farid Gilles Dreyfus Jullien A.R. Gaer Permission Requests Google Scholar Articles by Vohra, H. A. Articles by Gaer, J. A.R. PubMed Articles by Vohra, H. A. Articles by Gaer, J. A.R. Related Collections Coronary disease

Propensity score analysis of early and late outcome after redo off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Harefield Hospital, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom

Received 10 August 2007; received in revised form 5 November 2007; accepted 13 November 2007.

^_* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, Harefield Hospital, Harefield, Middlesex UB9 6JH, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 1895823737; fax: +44 1895 828666. (Email: julliengaer{at}hotmail.com).

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare early and late results of redo-CABG with (redo-ONCAB) and without (redo-OPCAB) cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: From April 2001 to September 2006 redo-CABG was performed in 110 patients (redo-ONCAB = 50 and redo-OPCAB = 60). Applying the propensity score, 43 OPCAB patients were matched with 43 ONCAB patients. The mean EuroScore was 5 ± 4.7 and 5 ± 3.4 for redo-ONCAB and redo-OPCAB, respectively (p = 0.5). The number of diseased coronary arteries was 3 ± 0.5 and 2 ± 0.8 in redo-ONCAB and redo-OPCAB, respectively (p < 0.01). Results: Twelve patients underwent OPCAB through anterior thoracotomy while the rest of the patients (n = 74) underwent median sternotomy. Mean number of grafts performed was 3 ± 0.8 in redo-ONCAB and 2 ± 0.6 in redo-OPCAB (p < 0.05). The need for postoperative insertion of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was higher (p = 0.02) in redo-ONCAB (n = 9, 21%) than redo-OPCAB (n = 1, 2%). The duration of postoperative ventilation was 55 ± 98.7 h for redo-ONCAB and 10 ± 12.8 h for redo-OPCAB (p = 0.008). No differences were found in the incidence of other postoperative complications. The 30-day mortality rate was 6.9% for redo-ONCAB (n = 3) and 2.3% redo-OPCAB (n = 1; p = NS). Mean follow-up for redo-ONCAB was 30 ± 21.3 months (range 0.1–63 months) and that of redo-OPCAB was 37 ± 19.2 months (0.1–62.5 months). Actuarial survival at 5 years was 87 ± 5.5% for redo-ONCAB and 95 ± 3.2% for redo-OPCAB (p = 0.17). Event-free survival was 71 ± 8.0% for redo-ONCAB and 78 ± 7.2% for redo-OPCAB (p = 0.32). Conclusion: OPCAB is an acceptable strategy in selected patients requiring redo-CABG. Employing a strategy of OPCAB for those patients with 2 or fewer lesions and ONCAB for those with more diffuse disease, redo-OPCAB and redo-ONCAB have similar early and late outcomes.

Key Words: ONCAB • OPCAB • Redo